5 ms·

Having weapons makes it more likely for violent acts to happen. Additionally there's a high risk that you will hurt yourself. And then there's the effect on the

Having weapons makes it more likely for violent acts to happen. Additionally there's a high risk that you will hurt yourself. And then there's the effect on the society: a society based on trust is more productive and safe than a society based on mistrust.

albertgoeswoof 9y ago
for society yes, but for the individual no
tryingagainbro 9y ago
>> Additionally there's a high risk that you will hurt yourself. Probably a lower one than starvation, rape or a violent death in the hands of another desperate person. >> And then there's the effect on the society: a society based on trust is more productive and safe than a society based on mistrust. Nice one. What would happen, today--with all the infrastructure in place--if cops /soldiers stayed home for 36 hours? Now add starvation plus desperation and try again.
morganvachon 9y ago
And not having weapons makes it more likely you will be attacked and killed for your provisions if the shit hits the fan. In other words, armed or not, violence is a given when it gets bad enough that people are scavenging for food. When it's so bad the police and military aren't there to protect you, you either roll over and die, or fight and possibly live another day. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that we don't live in a perfect world with everyone following the rules even in the best of times. I would love it if your ideal world where we all trust each other existed; it would be true paradise. But, we're only human and even the very best of us are flawed creatures.
- legulere 9y ago
  > And not having weapons makes it more likely you will be attacked and killed for your provisions if the shit hits the fan. These violence fantasies are repeated on and on in prepper communities, but that does not make them more true. Violence may increase, but mostly people come together to help each other.
  - theseatoms 9y ago
    Prepping is about being prepared for either scenario, or anything in between.
    - hwillis 9y ago
      thats tautological and/or no true scotsman, and doesn't directly address his claim
      - nitrogen 9y ago
        There's no claim to address; history has shown both outcomes can happen.
  - blhack 9y ago
    So if people come together and help each other, you won't need the weapons. Engineers seem to understand making backups and hoping you never need them, why is this different? You have the means to protect yourself, and pray that you'll never have to use it. (I am not a gun owner, by the way. This just seems perplexing)
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I'd be curious about historical examples. My gut is that people come together and help each other for short-term disasters or where hope of help arriving is widespread (e.g. National Guard being mobilized, local disruption in a still functioning country). Past ~week, or shorter if there's no hope for things being fixed, people reasonably revert to survival.
  - toss1 9y ago
    "Fantasy"? Not even close. We hope it stays far away, but when a highly technological society breaks down, it can happen very fast. Just read about Sarajevo, went from thriving metropolis to desperate in a matter of days, in a matter of 2-3 months, people were dying of starvation. Gangs ruled, and you had to be organized and armed to survive. Venezuela is descending into that state now, even with recently imposed gun confiscation. (and those are just political disasters) I write this without having made any particular preparations, as increasing instability has not yet crossed my threshold of probability. But to think that it is a mere "fantasy" that things could get bad enough to need stockpiles and weapons is itself the fantasy. Just read a bit of history, and/or do a bit or research into how fast things will run out --critical things-- when our Just-In-Time economy no longer delivers everything in time. [[edit: add parenthetical on political disasters]]
zodPod 9y ago
A society based on trust is a barrel of fish waiting to have stuff taken from them. Don't be a sheep. I'm not saying you need to be a militia member but you're dense if you believe that you're better off not having weapons because there will always be people that have them.
hwillis 9y ago
>Having weapons makes it more likely for violent acts to happen. I mean... ish. It definitely makes you more likely to commit suicide, but it doesn't really have much bearing on whether you're more likely to be targeted[1] or hurt. There's a massively confounding factor in that people who live in areas that are more violent have more incentive to buy a gun. [1]: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/10/guns-and-states-2-son-of-a-gun/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/10/guns-and-states-2-son-o...
Varcht 9y ago
There is no scarcity of weapons, rocks are plentiful and very hard to control access to.
irrational 9y ago
There is a reason Mad Max lives in Australia ;-)

albertgoeswoof 9y ago

for society yes, but for the individual no

tryingagainbro 9y ago

>> Additionally there's a high risk that you will hurt yourself. Probably a lower one than starvation, rape or a violent death in the hands of another desperate person. >> And then there's the effect on the society: a society based on trust is more productive and safe than a society based on mistrust. Nice one. What would happen, today--with all the infrastructure in place--if cops /soldiers stayed home for 36 hours? Now add starvation plus desperation and try again.

morganvachon 9y ago

And not having weapons makes it more likely you will be attacked and killed for your provisions if the shit hits the fan. In other words, armed or not, violence is a given when it gets bad enough that people are scavenging for food. When it's so bad the police and military aren't there to protect you, you either roll over and die, or fight and possibly live another day. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that we don't live in a perfect world with everyone following the rules even in the best of times. I would love it if your ideal world where we all trust each other existed; it would be true paradise. But, we're only human and even the very best of us are flawed creatures.

legulere 9y ago
> And not having weapons makes it more likely you will be attacked and killed for your provisions if the shit hits the fan. These violence fantasies are repeated on and on in prepper communities, but that does not make them more true. Violence may increase, but mostly people come together to help each other.
- theseatoms 9y ago
  Prepping is about being prepared for either scenario, or anything in between.
  - hwillis 9y ago
    thats tautological and/or no true scotsman, and doesn't directly address his claim
    - nitrogen 9y ago
      There's no claim to address; history has shown both outcomes can happen.
- blhack 9y ago
  So if people come together and help each other, you won't need the weapons. Engineers seem to understand making backups and hoping you never need them, why is this different? You have the means to protect yourself, and pray that you'll never have to use it. (I am not a gun owner, by the way. This just seems perplexing)
- ethbro 9y ago
  I'd be curious about historical examples. My gut is that people come together and help each other for short-term disasters or where hope of help arriving is widespread (e.g. National Guard being mobilized, local disruption in a still functioning country). Past ~week, or shorter if there's no hope for things being fixed, people reasonably revert to survival.
- toss1 9y ago
  "Fantasy"? Not even close. We hope it stays far away, but when a highly technological society breaks down, it can happen very fast. Just read about Sarajevo, went from thriving metropolis to desperate in a matter of days, in a matter of 2-3 months, people were dying of starvation. Gangs ruled, and you had to be organized and armed to survive. Venezuela is descending into that state now, even with recently imposed gun confiscation. (and those are just political disasters) I write this without having made any particular preparations, as increasing instability has not yet crossed my threshold of probability. But to think that it is a mere "fantasy" that things could get bad enough to need stockpiles and weapons is itself the fantasy. Just read a bit of history, and/or do a bit or research into how fast things will run out --critical things-- when our Just-In-Time economy no longer delivers everything in time. [[edit: add parenthetical on political disasters]]

zodPod 9y ago

A society based on trust is a barrel of fish waiting to have stuff taken from them. Don't be a sheep. I'm not saying you need to be a militia member but you're dense if you believe that you're better off not having weapons because there will always be people that have them.

hwillis 9y ago

>Having weapons makes it more likely for violent acts to happen. I mean... ish. It definitely makes you more likely to commit suicide, but it doesn't really have much bearing on whether you're more likely to be targeted[1] or hurt. There's a massively confounding factor in that people who live in areas that are more violent have more incentive to buy a gun. [1]: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/10/guns-and-states-2-son-of-a-gun/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/10/guns-and-states-2-son-o...

Varcht 9y ago

There is no scarcity of weapons, rocks are plentiful and very hard to control access to.

irrational 9y ago

There is a reason Mad Max lives in Australia ;-)